Earth warming more quickly than thought | Hacker News Reader

Earth warming more quickly than thought

m.phys.org

17 pointsstaktrace19 comments

I've seen this same headline every year at least once. I remember when we were just approaching 400ppm, now we are at 415ppm.

At what point do things change? I notice many people justify their lifestyle choices by saying 'China and India are the problem, America is one of the cleanest and most conscious', others say 'the climate is always changing. Science bitch.'

I'm not exaggerating. Intelligence is a bell curve and this is a very complex, layered problem with many variables. Most people I've met in my life do not accept nor comprehend the gravity of the situation unfolding. It used to bum me out a lot but now I find the only healthy response is to do what I can with the time and skills I have, to make choices that agree with my conscience, to accept that earth will go on with or without human beings.

>At what point do things change? I notice many people justify their lifestyle choices by saying 'China and India are the problem, America is one of the cleanest and most conscious'

LOL, people really do say that? America is only "clean" because it outsources its industrial production and externalities to third parties like China and India...

Heck, even the garbage and "recycled" stuff ends up there...

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/11/world/china-recyclables-b...

https://www.sbs.com.au/language/english/india-refuses-to-be-...

https://www.businessinsider.com/southeast-asia-threaten-to-r...

https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2018/06/28/6239729...

https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/india-plastic-wast...

Yes, hang out with 'everyday people' outside of the Bay Area or NYC and discuss this topic with them. Heck, post an article like this on reddit and see what you get in your inbox.

I am 100% with you, I have studied this subject for a long time now. Modern economics usually doesn't account for externalities, just growth without concern with environmental or social costs. Just growth, similar to how cancer or a virus operates.

The solution to the first justification (China is the problem) is https://issues.org/climate-clubs-to-overcome-free-riding/

The answer to the second concern (climate is always changing) is that 1) a much slower change at the permian-triassic boundary caused an extinction event larger than the one that wiped out the dinosaurs and that 2) the rate of change is probably more important than the magnitude, and the rate of this change is unprecedented. It's happening over decades rather than over millenia.

P.S. That first link is literally a Nobel Memorial Prize winning idea

Of course, the difference between the dinosaurs and humans is that humans can adapt very well.

Humans can adapt, the rest of the ecosystem can't. Especially since our roads, fields, fences et cetera make migration difficult.

1.) Thanks for the link, this is a good idea that should be implemented. Let's see how these countries react and let's see if everyone can get on the same page, at the same time, for the common good.

2.) I agree with you. We have literally built our civilization while inducing a mass extinction event. It's clear as day to me but it's still a debate to many people. The rate of biodiversity loss is several multiples higher than normal, this is concerning because the biosphere is a living system and removing key pieces can have a domino effect.

Tragedy of the Commons problems are pretty tough to crack, especially when the commons is the entire planet.

Look at it this way, you could live the most energy indulgent lifestyle possible or you could spend the rest of your life eating grubs in the woods and it would not swing the needle either way - at all.

It's hard to convince rational actors to do something or sacrifice things for a payoff that, on an individual level, is about as close to zero as possible.

Personally, my strategy is to try to live reasonably, try not to consume or pollute too much, vote my conscience, and hope like hell that the next generation or two are much better equipped (and motivated) to solve the problem. Hopefully by then they've figured out "free" fusion energy and maybe they can just run a few gigawatt carbon sequestration plants...

I'm actually fairly optimistic that they will be up to the task. I mean, can you imagine how pathetic the outcomes would have been if you would have asked 1919 Earth to solve the problems we've cracked in the last 50 years?

I agree that at the individual level the tools we currently have to make a meaningful difference are quite lacking. And yes, I too hope that future tech will help. For now at least we can pester business and government to give us better options and make it easier to behave in an environmentally responsible way.

While I agree with you, this article struck more of a chord with me, and I think it's because it specifically says "7 degrees by 2100". That feels hot enough and near enough that it's more of an emotional reaction, and as we all know, humans are driven by emotions. So I'm hopeful it will affect others the way it affected me and people will take notice.

>as we all know, humans are driven by emotions

Emotions sure but reason too.

If anyone could reasonably explain to me exactly why I should trust any of those models that are not even close to making accurate predictions I would be grateful.

Because it's not about making "accurate predictions", but about recognizing a still disastrous trend.

Recognizing that the house "is on fire" is more important than being able to tell (which noone really can) with great precision at what moment this curtain with caught fire itself, how many degrees will be in the patio in 30 minutes, and when the roof will collapse...

If your house is full of feces and garbage, you'd want to remove them. A sane person wouldn't wait until experts warning you about cholera, dysentery, and typhoid from said garbage to first "accurately predict" when exactly the first family member will get such a disease, how high a fever they will get, and whether they'll survive it or not...

Not to mention that treating the environment better, reducing CO2, saving forests, and reducing waste, are good in themselves, with or without a climate emergency attached to them.

This doesn't look like a reasonable explanation at all.

Nothing looks like a reasonable explanation when someone doesn't want to accept any alternative to what they are already determined to believe...

Even if the overwhelming majority of global climate experts say otherwise and who warn of the danger, he can always consider them misguided or in a big conspiracy to dupe us...

I saw that too and it's definitely concerning. Yet there has been so much news lately about fires, extinction, melting, storms, protests, 'Trump did this now' that most people I know are numb and are starting to check out. It's football season and school has started, many people in America have already forgotten about the Amazon situation.

I think about this too, it's amazing how quickly we all forget, even though the last catastrophe was only a few weeks go.

Yes, media bombards people with messages all day and all of them are 'breaking news'. We only have so much capacity for new information and for 'breaking news'. This is a serious problem of our times I think, this is part of why things don't change as fast as we'd like them to.

For 30 years I tried to teach people and tell people about the things that I see working outside on a day-to-day basis. Then I realized nobody cares capitalism has forced everyone into a small mindset of monetary gain. I don't care anymore I'm just going to get my slice of the pie and then watch the whole thing burn in comfort.

Implicit in your statement is that "saving the environment" and "making money" are mutually exclusive. That may have been the case at some point in the past, but it is no longer true. We can definitely make money while doing the right thing for the environment. Regardless, thank you for your (past) efforts.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com